AC; most in the TI camp feel that the constitution is outdated and needs to be revised, we don’t pick and choose as you suggest.
Continuing… your poll is too lopsided to even bother voting with. I could create endless polls designed to be onesided. How come this stuff mostly comes from your side? One wonders…
[quote=“Master Kang”]If the “mainland” is constitutionally part of the ROC, and if the CCP is constitutionally barred from the ROC, as some have stated (cough AC cough), then any room for dealing with the unconstitutional PRC should be used to rectify the illegal retention of political independence by the PRC. Shouldn’t negotiations focus on the CCP’s illegality and occupation of ROC territory on the “mainland?”
Absurd, isn’t it? Then why is it not absurd for the PRC to challenge the ROC’s authority? Does might make right? An unwanted takeover of Taiwan by any means or name is still a takeover. [/quote]
Not absurd, but history. That is exactly the conditions the started the Chinese Civil War when the CCP were forcefully expelled from the ROC.
If ROC had the military force to back up its claim then your first paragraph is exactly what did happen and what will happen in the continuation of the Chinese Civil war.
The “Taiwanese” have accept rule from the Mainland, the Dutch, the Japanese, the Mainland agian…etc. It is the nature of living on a island with powerful political forces right at is doorstep.
Once again you confuse what the ROC is at the moment. It is a republic not a democracy. The masses have choosen representatives to make decisions for them. If it was a democracy, then every issue would be resolved by a referrendum.
[quote=“ShrimpCrackers”]AC; most in the TI camp feel that the constitution is outdated and needs to be revised, we don’t pick and choose as you suggest.
[/quote]
TI supporters like yourself just fabricate things.
But TI in general “pick and choose” all the time. There is no straight answer from the leaders like CSB and LTH for instance. One claims ROC is alive the other claims it is dead. One wants a Hoklo Nation, one wants a Japanese nation.
Instead of a continuation of the Chinese Civil war, why not revise the ROC and PRC constitutions to reflect the reality of 2 Chinas? Nobody gets killed, only feelings get hurt.
[quote=“ac_dropout”]The “Taiwanese” have accept rule from the Mainland, the Dutch, the Japanese, the Mainland agian…etc. It is the nature of living on a island with powerful political forces right at is doorstep.
Once again you confuse what the ROC is at the moment. It is a republic not a democracy. The masses have choosen representatives to make decisions for them. If it was a democracy, then every issue would be resolved by a referrendum.[/quote]
Again, the answer is constitutional revision to make Taiwan into a fully-functional constitutional democracy. I don’t see a democracy in the world where every issue is resolved by a referendum. But, if the voters boycotting Taiwan’s first referendum can be interpreted as objecting to the purchase of defensive weapons, then it can also be interpreted as objecting to any peace mechanism, even the current “Surrender Bill.”
Neither China can unilaterally make those changes at this time. If they could it would have been a long time ago. The Nationalist on both sides wish to see a unified China in the future. The TI side on Taiwan will need to deal with the Nationalist on Taiwan first, then deal with the Nationalist on the Mainland.
Of course ROC will also need the blessing of USA to make any changes as well. Since the local issues on Taiwan are also the geopolitical issue between USA and PRC.
I think you are confusing the common propoganda term “democracy” with “republic.” To my knowledge there are very few functioning States that operate as a democracy.
In a republic the elected official is empowered to make decisions independent of the populous. Granted the public may choose not to elect that official again, but during their term they can may decisions with impunity. It is often stated that a republic protects the interest of the minority group.
In a true democracy, every issue is up for a vote, and the majority wins, always. There is no minority interest group in a democracy. It is ruled by 51 percent of the mob.
Thus ROC is a republic, the referrendum failed and minority interest group still press forward. Pan-Green try to buy arms and pan-Blue try to negotiate peace against public interest.
The vast majority of the people on Taiwan want to do absolutely nothing and let USA and PRC play their political games for dominance in the Pacific. ROC will side with the winner when it becomes apparent in the future.
Neither China can unilaterally make those changes at this time. If they could it would have been a long time ago. The Nationalist on both sides wish to see a unified China in the future. The TI side on Taiwan will need to deal with the Nationalist on Taiwan first, then deal with the Nationalist on the Mainland.
Of course ROC will also need the blessing of USA to make any changes as well. Since the local issues on Taiwan are also the geopolitical issue between USA and PRC.
I think you are confusing the common propoganda term “democracy” with “republic.” To my knowledge there are very few functioning States that operate as a democracy.
In a republic the elected official is empowered to make decisions independent of the populous. Granted the public may choose not to elect that official again, but during their term they can may decisions with impunity. It is often stated that a republic protects the interest of the minority group.
In a true democracy, every issue is up for a vote, and the majority wins, always. There is no minority interest group in a democracy. It is ruled by 51 percent of the mob.
Thus ROC is a republic, the referrendum failed and minority interest group still press forward. Pan-Green try to buy arms and pan-Blue try to negotiate peace against public interest.
The vast majority of the people on Taiwan want to do absolutely nothing and let USA and PRC play their political games for dominance in the Pacific. ROC will side with the winner when it becomes apparent in the future.[/quote]
“In recent decades ‘democracy’ was used as a synonym for (western) liberal-democratic systems in nation-states, but the existence of “illiberal democracies” is now recognised. The qualifier ‘liberal’ in this context refers strictly speaking to constitutional liberalism and individual rights, but ‘liberal democracy’ is widely used to describe other aspects, (see below and the main article Liberal democracy).”
Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy
So AC, he is not incorrect by calling it a Democracy.
Shrimp,
Do you even understand the statement you cut and pasted? Because it doesn’t address the issue at hand.
My point is that democracy is commonly misused as for instances of republic, the process of settling political issues in a society. Especially when it is used by the USA, which is a federal republic, and doesn’t have any form of democracy on the federal level.
It is nothing to do with nation-states, which an entho-centric view of how States are formed.
Nor does it have anything to do with liberalism, the belief that individuals have more rights than the State.
I believe Shrimp more than you because he always backs up his responses with sources.